DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1806.01861V1 [Quant-Ph] 5 Jun 2018 Lower Clock Speed Than Classical Ones

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1806.01861V1 [Quant-Ph] 5 Jun 2018 Lower Clock Speed Than Classical Ones Advantages of a modular high-level quantum programming framework Damian S. Steiger,1, ∗ Thomas H¨aner,1, y and Matthias Troyer1 1Theoretische Physik, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland We review some of the features of the ProjectQ software framework and quantify their impact on the resulting circuits. The concise high-level language facilitates implementing even complex algorithms in a very time-efficient manner while, at the same time, providing the compiler with additional information for optimization through code annotation { so-called meta-instructions. We investigate the impact of these annotations for the example of Shor's algorithm in terms of logical gate counts. Furthermore, we analyze the effect of different intermediate gate sets for optimization and how the dimensions of the resulting circuit depend on a smart choice thereof. Finally, we demonstrate the benefits of a modular compilation framework by implementing mapping procedures for one- and two-dimensional nearest neighbor architectures which we then compare in terms of overhead for different problem sizes. Keywords: Quantum Computing, Compilers, Quantum Programming Languages I. INTRODUCTION Quantum computers will be able to solve certain prob- lems faster than any classical supercomputers and thus enable finding solutions to problems that are intractable classical on any future classical computer. Quantum computers are not intended to replace classical technology. Rather, quantum they should be viewed as special-purpose accelerators, Run time similar to today's GPUs or FPGAs which are running in compute centers to speed up specific applications or subprocesses thereof. Problem size There are many reasons to believe that quantum com- puters will not replace classical computers. One is that most of the currently pursued technologies to build quan- Figure 1. Illustration of what is typically encountered when comparing a quantum algorithm which exhibits a quantum tum bits require a vacuum chamber or temperatures on speed-up to the best classical algorithm in terms of run time. the order of milliKelvin, which makes them bulky and un- The crossover point, i.e., the problem size after which the suitable for mobile technology. In addition, there are fun- quantum algorithm outperforms its classical counterpart, is damental constraints for the programs running on quan- shown as a red dashed line. tum hardware due to the laws of quantum mechanics. In particular, all operations must be made reversible which incurs a large polynomial overhead in both space and few examples of algorithms with quantum speedups are time when translating a classical computation consisting known and finding more is a very challenging task which of, e.g., NAND gates to reversible Toffoli gates. Further- is crucial to the development of the whole community. more, to successfully run a quantum program on a phys- In order to determine if quantum algorithms with a ical device, quantum error correction has to be employed scaling advantage can be useful for real applications, it in order to reduce the effects of noise on the computa- is important to investigate at which problem size the tion. This causes quantum computers to run at a much crossover point is reached after which the quantum al- arXiv:1806.01861v1 [quant-ph] 5 Jun 2018 lower clock speed than classical ones. gorithm has lower runtime, see Fig. 1 for an illustration. Hence, the focus of the quantum computing research If the crossover point is too far out, it might not be prac- community has been on finding applications for which tical to use a quantum computer, e.g., if observing any a quantum algorithm has a large scaling advantage in speed advantage requires a runtime of at least the age of time-to-solution, also known as a quantum speedup. A the universe [2]. Cost estimation of a quantum program handful of such algorithms has been discovered such as can be achieved time-efficiently using a full stack software the famous algorithm by Peter Shor for factoring inte- framework with a quantum programming language and gers [1]. This algorithm scales super-polynomially better sophisticated compilers. With these optimizing compil- than the best known classical algorithm and has applica- ers, such a framework also allows to lower the crossover tions in breaking certain encryption schemes. So far only point even in the absence of large-scale quantum com- puters. This is crucial in order to leverage the economic potential of small-scale quantum computers as soon as ∗ [email protected] possible. y [email protected] In this paper, we are concerned with the software stack 2 involved in running a quantum program. We provide a partial review of our software methodology [3] which was then implemented resulting in the ProjectQ software • Classical computation Host framework for quantum computing [4], but with a new • Static compilation of focus on some important aspects of the high-level pro- quantum program gramming language and new mappers. In particular, we show how different intermediate representations can de- crease the quantum resources for the example of Shor's algorithm and quantify the resource improvements by us- • Runtime environment ing meta-instructions (code annotation) in the high-level Controller including low-level language. We then introduce a new feature of ProjectQ, compilation and QEC namely mapping to a linear chain of qubits with nearest neighbor gates or a two-dimensional square grid. Con- • Feedback with QPU sidering the overhead of mapping is important in deter- mining the crossover points of quantum algorithms run- ning on specific architectures. While our mappers scale • Quantum instructions optimally in terms of circuit depth, there is potential QPU to reduce the constant factors by finding better heuris- • Measurement tics. Providing these mappers and applications as open source software allows to incrementally improve their per- formance. Mappers are not just important in the long run, but crucial in the current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Figure 2. Different levels of logic in a quantum hardware Quantum (NISQ) technology era [5], where quantum re- stack. For some architectures, the number of intermediate sources are very limited. We conclude with an outline hardware levels may vary and lower parts of the stack may of future research with and development of the ProjectQ reside in a cryostat [20]. framework. Related work Besides ProjectQ, there have been nu- merous other contributions in this field of quantum pro- for a grid with n points, see [19]. gramming languages and compilers. A few of them are available as open source such as Quipper [6], a quan- tum program compiler implemented in Haskell, the Scaf- II. COMPILATION TO QUANTUM fCC compiler based on the LLVM framework [7], IBM's HARDWARE QISKit [8], and Rigetti's pyQuil [9]. Moreover, there are closed source quantum programming languages such as The goal of a quantum software stack is to compile Microsoft's LIQUi ji [10] or Microsoft's Q# [11], the lat- quantum programs to run them on actual quantum hard- ter of which currently allows executing the resulting cir- ware. We give a short overview of a quantum software cuits on a local simulator employing simulation kernels stack, outlining the challenges involved from a high-level from ETH Zurich [12]. perspective before going into the details in the next sec- The task of mapping a quantum circuit to a restricted tions. For a recent review on quantum programming, see interaction graph has been studied extensively. The aim Ref. [21] and more details on our methodology can be of this paper is to provide model implementations of map- found in [3]. pers in ProjectQ. Future work will be concerned with A high-level schematic of a large-scale quantum com- extending and improving their performance beyond the puter is shown in Fig. 2. A quantum computer func- current state of the art. Mapping to a linear nearest tions as an accelerator for a classical host computer to neighbor architecture is discussed in detail for example solve specific subproblems. The software stack running in [13{15]. Our implementation is similar to Hirata et on the host computer performs the static compilation of al. [14] for a linear nearest neighbor architecture. Our a quantum program. This process includes decomposing algorithm finds qubit placements using a greedy search operations into a low-level logical gate set such as, e.g., while theirs also employs more compute-intensive opti- the two-qubit CNOT gate and single-qubit rotations. Af- mizations in order to reduce the total number of swaps. ter decomposing the quantum program into a low-level We improve upon their method by using a standard odd- gate set, the compiler on the host computer has to map even transposition sort [16] instead of bubble sort for the all operations to a restricted connectivity graph where, routing which can reduce the circuit depth by a constant e.g., only nearest-neighbor qubits can perform a CNOT factor using the same number of swaps. Our implemen- gate and hence qubits may have to be routed by swap tation of a mapper for the two-dimensional square grid operations. follows the description in [17, 18]. It has been known Closer to hardware, we imagine a powerful classical since 1986 that there are sorting networkp for square grids controller which provides the runtime software environ- which have a worst-case overhead of 3 n in circuit depth ment. This includes error correction, rotation synthesis, 3 circuit-depth overhead solution using a brute-force ap- proach for near-term hardware. It is important, however, to keep in mind that we should only apply compilation , techniques which at least scale to quantum program sizes that we cannot classically simulate because only there, a quantum computer might show an advantage. All smaller programs are just proof of concept along the way toward larger quantum computers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Four Results of Jon Kleinberg a Talk for St.Petersburg Mathematical Society
    Four Results of Jon Kleinberg A Talk for St.Petersburg Mathematical Society Yury Lifshits Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St.Petersburg May 2007 1 / 43 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 / 43 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 2 / 43 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 2 / 43 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 2 / 43 Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams 2 / 43 Part I History of Nevanlinna Prize Career of Jon Kleinberg 3 / 43 Nevanlinna Prize The Rolf Nevanlinna Prize is awarded once every 4 years at the International Congress of Mathematicians, for outstanding contributions in Mathematical Aspects of Information Sciences including: 1 All mathematical aspects of computer science, including complexity theory, logic of programming languages, analysis of algorithms, cryptography, computer vision, pattern recognition, information processing and modelling of intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigability of Small World Networks
    Navigability of Small World Networks Pierre Fraigniaud CNRS and University Paris Sud http://www.lri.fr/~pierre Introduction Interaction Networks • Communication networks – Internet – Ad hoc and sensor networks • Societal networks – The Web – P2P networks (the unstructured ones) • Social network – Acquaintance – Mail exchanges • Biology (Interactome network), linguistics, etc. Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 3 Common statistical properties • Low density • “Small world” properties: – Average distance between two nodes is small, typically O(log n) – The probability p that two distinct neighbors u1 and u2 of a same node v are neighbors is large. p = clustering coefficient • “Scale free” properties: – Heavy tailed probability distributions (e.g., of the degrees) Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 4 Gaussian vs. Heavy tail Example : human sizes Example : salaries µ Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 5 Power law loglog ppk prob{prob{ X=kX=k }} ≈≈ kk-α loglog kk Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 6 Random graphs vs. Interaction networks • Random graphs: prob{e exists} ≈ log(n)/n – low clustering coefficient – Gaussian distribution of the degrees • Interaction networks – High clustering coefficient – Heavy tailed distribution of the degrees Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 7 New problematic • Why these networks share these properties? • What model for – Performance analysis of these networks – Algorithm design for these networks • Impact of the measures? • This lecture addresses navigability Dec. 19, 2006 HiPC'06 8 Navigability Milgram Experiment • Source person s (e.g., in Wichita) • Target person t (e.g., in Cambridge) – Name, professional occupation, city of living, etc. • Letter transmitted via a chain of individuals related on a personal basis • Result: “six degrees of separation” Dec.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade of Lattice Cryptography
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000074 A Decade of Lattice Cryptography Chris Peikert Computer Science and Engineering University of Michigan, United States Boston — Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000074 Foundations and Trends R in Theoretical Computer Science Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 United States Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is C. Peikert. A Decade of Lattice Cryptography. Foundations and Trends R in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 283–424, 2014. R This Foundations and Trends issue was typeset in LATEX using a class file designed by Neal Parikh. Printed on acid-free paper. ISBN: 978-1-68083-113-9 c 2016 C. Peikert All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for in- ternal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The ‘services’ for users can be found on the internet at: www.copyright.com For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraint Based Dimension Correlation and Distance
    Preface The papers in this volume were presented at the Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity held from May 4-6, 1999 in Atlanta, Georgia, in conjunction with the Federated Computing Research Conference. This conference was sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing, in cooperation with the ACM SIGACT (The special interest group on Algorithms and Complexity Theory) and EATCS (The European Association for Theoretical Computer Science). The call for papers sought original research papers in all areas of computational complexity. A total of 70 papers were submitted for consideration of which 28 papers were accepted for the conference and for inclusion in these proceedings. Six of these papers were accepted to a joint STOC/Complexity session. For these papers the full conference paper appears in the STOC proceedings and a one-page summary appears in these proceedings. The program committee invited two distinguished researchers in computational complexity - Avi Wigderson and Jin-Yi Cai - to present invited talks. These proceedings contain survey articles based on their talks. The program committee thanks Pradyut Shah and Marcus Schaefer for their organizational and computer help, Steve Tate and the SIGACT Electronic Publishing Board for the use and help of the electronic submissions server, Peter Shor and Mike Saks for the electronic conference meeting software and Danielle Martin of the IEEE for editing this volume. The committee would also like to thank the following people for their help in reviewing the papers: E. Allender, V. Arvind, M. Ajtai, A. Ambainis, G. Barequet, S. Baumer, A. Berthiaume, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Actions Department of Physics 2015
    INTER ACTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS 2015 The Department of Physics has a very accomplished family of alumni. In this issue we begin to recognize just a few of them with stories submitted by graduates from each of the decades since 1950. We want to invite all of you to renew and strengthen your ties to our department. We would love to hear from you, telling us what you are doing and commenting on how the department has helped in your career and life. Alumna returns to the Physics Department to Implement New MCS Core Education When I heard that the Department of Physics needed a hand implementing the new MCS Core Curriculum, I couldn’t imagine a better fit. Not only did it provide an opportunity to return to my hometown, but Carnegie Mellon itself had been a fixture in my life for many years, from taking classes as a high school student to teaching after graduation. I was thrilled to have the chance to return. I graduated from Carnegie Mellon in 2008, with a B.S. in physics and a B.A. in Japanese. Afterwards, I continued to teach at CMARC’s Summer Academy for Math and Science during the summers while studying down the street at the University of Pittsburgh. In 2010, I earned my M.A. in East Asian Studies there based on my research into how cultural differences between Japan and America have helped shape their respective robotics industries. After receiving my master’s degree and spending a summer studying in Japan, I taught for Kaplan as graduate faculty for a year before joining the Department of Physics at Cornell University.
    [Show full text]
  • The BBVA Foundation Recognizes Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard
    www.frontiersofknowledgeawards-fbbva.es Press release 3 March, 2020 The BBVA Foundation recognizes Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard and Peter Shor for their fundamental role in the development of quantum computation and cryptography In the 1980s, chemical physicist Bennett and computer scientist Brassard invented quantum cryptography, a technology that using the laws of quantum physics in a way that makes them unreadable to eavesdroppers, in the words of the award committee The importance of this technology was demonstrated ten years later, when mathematician Shor discovered that a hypothetical quantum computer would drive a hole through the conventional cryptographic systems that underpin the security and privacy of Internet communications Their landmark contributions have boosted the development of quantum computers, which promise to perform calculations at a far greater speed and scale than machines, and enabled cryptographic systems that guarantee the inviolability of communications The BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Basic Sciences has gone in this twelfth edition to Charles Bennett, Gilles Brassard and Peter Shor for their outstanding contributions to the field of quantum computation and communication Bennett and Brassard, a chemical physicist and computer scientist respectively, invented quantum cryptography in the 1980s to ensure the physical inviolability of data communications. The importance of their work became apparent ten years later, when mathematician Peter Shor discovered that a hypothetical quantum computer would render effectively useless the communications. The award committee, chaired by Nobel Physics laureate Theodor Hänsch with quantum physicist Ignacio Cirac acting as its secretary, remarked on the leap forward in quantum www.frontiersofknowledgeawards-fbbva.es Press release 3 March, 2020 technologies witnessed in these last few years, an advance which draws heavily on the new .
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum-Proofing the Blockchain
    QUANTUM-PROOFING THE BLOCKCHAIN Vlad Gheorghiu, Sergey Gorbunov, Michele Mosca, and Bill Munson University of Waterloo November 2017 A BLOCKCHAIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE BIG IDEA WHITEPAPER Realizing the new promise of the digital economy In 1994, Don Tapscott coined the phrase, “the digital economy,” with his book of that title. It discussed how the Web and the Internet of information would bring important changes in business and society. Today the Internet of value creates profound new possibilities. In 2017, Don and Alex Tapscott launched the Blockchain Research Institute to help realize the new promise of the digital economy. We research the strategic implications of blockchain technology and produce practical insights to contribute global blockchain knowledge and help our members navigate this revolution. Our findings, conclusions, and recommendations are initially proprietary to our members and ultimately released to the public in support of our mission. To find out more, please visitwww.blockchainresearchinstitute.org . Blockchain Research Institute, 2018 Except where otherwise noted, this work is copyrighted 2018 by the Blockchain Research Institute and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. To view a copy of this license, send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA, or visit creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode. This document represents the views of its author(s), not necessarily those of Blockchain Research Institute or the Tapscott Group. This material is for informational purposes only; it is neither investment advice nor managerial consulting. Use of this material does not create or constitute any kind of business relationship with the Blockchain Research Institute or the Tapscott Group, and neither the Blockchain Research Institute nor the Tapscott Group is liable for the actions of persons or organizations relying on this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Error Correction
    Quantum Error Correction Peter Young (Dated: March 6, 2020) I. INTRODUCTION Quantum error correction has developed into a huge topic, so here we will only be able to describe the main ideas. Error correction is essential for quantum computing, but appeared at first to be impossible, for reasons that we shall see. The field was transformed in 1995 by Shor[1] and Steane[2] who showed that quantum error correction is feasible. Before Shor and Steane, the goal of building a useful quantum computer seemed clearly unattainable. After those two papers, while building a quantum computer obviously posed enormous challenges, it was not necessarily impossible. Some general references on quantum error correction are Refs. [3{6]. Let us start by giving a simple discussion of classical error correction which will motivate our study of quantum error correction. In classical computers error correction is not necessary. This is because the hardware for one bit is huge on an atomic scale and the states 0 and 1 are so different that the probability of an unwanted flip is tiny. However, error correction is needed classically for transmitting a signal over large distances where it attenuates and can be corrupted by noise. To do error correction one needs to have redundancy. One simple way of doing classical error correction is to encode each logical bit by three physical bits, i.e. j0i ! j0i ≡ j0ij0ij0i ≡ j000i ; (1a) j1i ! j1i ≡ j1ij1ij1i ≡ j111i : (1b) The sets of three bits, j000i and j111i, are called codewords. One monitors the codewords to look for errors. If the bits in a codeword are not all the same one uses \majority rule" to correct.
    [Show full text]
  • Pairwise Independence and Derandomization
    Pairwise Independence and Derandomization Pairwise Independence and Derandomization Michael Luby Digital Fountain Fremont, CA, USA Avi Wigderson Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ, USA [email protected] Boston – Delft Foundations and TrendsR in Theoretical Computer Science Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 USA Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress The preferred citation for this publication is M. Luby and A. Wigderson, Pairwise R Independence and Derandomization, Foundation and Trends in Theoretical Com- puter Science, vol 1, no 4, pp 237–301, 2005 Printed on acid-free paper ISBN: 1-933019-22-0 c 2006 M. Luby and A. Wigderson All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The ‘services’ for users can be found on the internet at: www.copyright.com For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Error Correction Todd A
    Quantum Error Correction Todd A. Brun Summary Quantum error correction is a set of methods to protect quantum information—that is, quantum states—from unwanted environmental interactions (decoherence) and other forms of noise. The information is stored in a quantum error-correcting code, which is a subspace in a larger Hilbert space. This code is designed so that the most common errors move the state into an error space orthogonal to the original code space while preserving the information in the state. It is possible to determine whether an error has occurred by a suitable measurement and to apply a unitary correction that returns the state to the code space, without measuring (and hence disturbing) the protected state itself. In general, codewords of a quantum code are entangled states. No code that stores information can protect against all possible errors; instead, codes are designed to correct a specific error set, which should be chosen to match the most likely types of noise. An error set is represented by a set of operators that can multiply the codeword state. Most work on quantum error correction has focused on systems of quantum bits, or qubits, which are two-level quantum systems. These can be physically realized by the states of a spin-1/2 particle, the polarization of a single photon, two distinguished levels of a trapped atom or ion, the current states of a microscopic superconducting loop, or many other physical systems. The most widely-used codes are the stabilizer codes, which are closely related to classical linear codes. The code space is the joint +1 eigenspace of a set of commuting Pauli operators on n qubits, called stabilizer generators; the error syndrome is determined by measuring these operators, which allows errors to be diagnosed and corrected.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Error Correcting Codes and Quantum Cryptography Peter Shor M.I.T
    Quantum Error Correcting Codes and Quantum Cryptography Peter Shor M.I.T. Cambridge, MA 02139 1 We start out with two processes which are fundamentally quantum: superdense coding and teleportation. Superdense coding begins with the question: How much information can one qubit convey? Holevo's bound (we discuss this later) says that one qubit can only convey one bit. However, if a sender and receiver share entanglement, i.e., one EPR pair, they can use this entanglement and one qubit to send two classical bits. 2 The four states (the Bell basis) are mutually orthogonal 1 ( 00 + 11 ) 1 ( 00 11 ) 1 ( 01 + 10 ) 1 ( 01 10 ) p2 j i j i p2 j i−j i p2 j i j i p2 j i−j i Any one can be turned into any other (up to a phase factor) by applying the appropriate Pauli matrix to either of the two qubits. 1 0 0 1 id = σx = 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 @ A @ A 0 i 1 0 σy = − σz = 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 1 − @ A @ A 3 Superdense Coding: Receiver Two classical bits Sender One qubit Two classical bits EPR Pair of qubits 4 Superdense Coding Alice and Bob start with the state 1 ( 00 + 11 ), where p2 j iAB j iAB Alice holds the first qubit and Bob the second. Alice applies one of the four Pauli matrices to her qubit, and sends her qubit to Bob. He can then tell all four Bell states apart, so he knows which Pauli matrix Alice applied.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computation Beyond the Circuit Model by Stephen Paul Jordan
    Quantum Computation Beyond the Circuit Model by Stephen Paul Jordan Submitted to the Department of Physics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2008 c Stephen Paul Jordan, MMVIII. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Author............................................. ............................... Department of Physics May 2008 Certified by.......................................... .............................. Edward H. Farhi Professor of Physics Thesis Supervisor arXiv:0809.2307v1 [quant-ph] 13 Sep 2008 Accepted by......................................... .............................. Thomas J. Greytak Professor of Physics 2 Quantum Computation Beyond the Circuit Model by Stephen Paul Jordan Submitted to the Department of Physics on May 2008, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics Abstract The quantum circuit model is the most widely used model of quantum computation. It provides both a framework for formulating quantum algorithms and an architecture for the physical construction of quantum computers. However, several other models of quantum computation exist which provide useful alternative frameworks for both discovering new quantum algorithms and devising new physical implementations of quantum computers. In this thesis, I first present necessary
    [Show full text]